Light Up - Well done Pam and Brent!

[Chief Stipe]

Geez at $44's I hope you got plenty!

[Reefton]

Yes well done guys.  Bloody slick time too

 

[The Centaur]

11 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Geez at $44's I hope you got plenty!

Yes congrats all around. One for the forums but can't afford the match to light up the form books.

[Chief Stipe]

There won't be a safe bottle of rum near Pam!

[Doomed]

Bloody hell...an AWT specialist, who would have thought it.

[curious]

A fantastic job by an awesome team and a really neat but totally enigmatic character of a horse. That said, I'm pretty sure the riders he dropped in recent weeks concur and would have been cheering him on today.

[Chief Stipe]

5 hours ago, curious said:

That said, I'm pretty sure the riders he dropped in recent weeks concur and would have been cheering him on today.

Geez don't tell @Thomass that!  He'll want that metric recorded in the form guides!

[Freda]

I'd like to correct a misapprehension.

There seems to be a notion in some quarters that I am against AWT's.

I have said repeatedly that I have nothing against them in a general sense...that fact seems to escape some.

An alternative work surface is part and parcel of a modern, quality training facility - along with uphill gallops, tracks with turns of both directions, water treadmills, hyperbaric chambers, areas for walking/trotting away from the general hubbub of faster work...just look at the facilities in many quality establishments elsewhere ; Lindsay Park,  Ciaron Maher, just a couple to highlight;   we can but dream.  

What I was, and still am, critical of, was the use of taxpayer funds for a training track.

The notion that, somehow, this option will  'revitalise'  N.Z racing.

Locally- the difficulties faced by trainers during the installation of said track, with little understanding of day to day concerns.   Safety matters seemingly ignored.  

The removal of many good training tracks [ 13 in all, not counting the course proper of course ] to leave us with three plus the poly.

The biggie - for me - is, however, the plan to scuttle many provincial venues to justify the AWT.  

As an optional extra - fine.

But, as has been said by others, whether or not a club is viable is up to market forces, not some preconceived plan with self-interests running high.

 

 

[Freda]

...and, obviously, some horses will be suited, others not.   

That fact ain't rocket science.

[Huey]

6 hours ago, Freda said:

I'd like to correct a misapprehension.

There seems to be a notion in some quarters that I am against AWT's.

I have said repeatedly that I have nothing against them in a general sense...that fact seems to escape some.

An alternative work surface is part and parcel of a modern, quality training facility - along with uphill gallops, tracks with turns of both directions, water treadmills, hyperbaric chambers, areas for walking/trotting away from the general hubbub of faster work...just look at the facilities in many quality establishments elsewhere ; Lindsay Park,  Ciaron Maher, just a couple to highlight;   we can but dream.  

What I was, and still am, critical of, was the use of taxpayer funds for a training track.

The notion that, somehow, this option will  'revitalise'  N.Z racing.

Locally- the difficulties faced by trainers during the installation of said track, with little understanding of day to day concerns.   Safety matters seemingly ignored.  

The removal of many good training tracks [ 13 in all, not counting the course proper of course ] to leave us with three plus the poly.

The biggie - for me - is, however, the plan to scuttle many provincial venues to justify the AWT.  

As an optional extra - fine.

But, as has been said by others, whether or not a club is viable is up to market forces, not some preconceived plan with self-interests running high.

 

 

What you say makes good sense.

 

But I can only see these surfaces ruining racing locally, for many reasons you have outlined and also because the governing body etc will do whatever they have to , to make these surfaces look succesful (that looks like it will include taking dates away from more established venues etc).

If they don't work locally I can't see any exit plan out of them either.

I find the racing boring and it has a somewhat cruel look about to me which isn't something I can entertain supporting.

Of course I am only one person and their success or lack of it won't depend on my support ...still I'd love to see some wagering figures for the venues we should have some good data by now available and I'm not sure why thats kept from the industry.

[KickintheKods]

Well done team. 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by KickintheKods

[curious]

2 hours ago, KickintheKods said:

Well done team. 

 

 

I saw you tried to put up a song with this KitK? The song should probably be this. We gave him a new stable name of Styx when I got him - after this.

 

[curious]

2 hours ago, Huey said:

I find the racing boring and it has a somewhat cruel look about to me which isn't something I can entertain supporting.

 

What do you see that makes it seem cruel Huey?

[Huey]

50 minutes ago, curious said:

What do you see that makes it seem cruel Huey?

I don't like the look of it , some horses look very uncomfortable on it to me, much of that is born out by the spread of horses in a finish.

For me I find it a horrible watch , love to see some wagering and see if punters are enjoying though.

[Freda]

An astute observer of betting trends / statistics has the opinion that punters are not likely to lose any more as a result of the presence of AWT'S.   

However, he doesn't feel they will necessarily lose less, either. 

Which, given the current betting data ( which we don't see without a bit of digging)  indicates that ( lack of )  profitability isn't likely to alter.

 

[Huey]

5 hours ago, Freda said:

An astute observer of betting trends / statistics has the opinion that punters are not likely to lose any more as a result of the presence of AWT'S.   

However, he doesn't feel they will necessarily lose less, either. 

Which, given the current betting data ( which we don't see without a bit of digging)  indicates that ( lack of )  profitability isn't likely to alter.

 

Perhaps, but do they want to bet on the product?

For me its a no, for reasons I've already outlined.

If a punter outlay is less or not profitable for the industry then what is the point of it all? You could say field size and opportunity or meetings not getting abandoned but I'm yet to see any evidence to support those claims.

We already have many many unprofitable meetings in this industry do we not? 

I'm just trying to get my head around why these are better for the industry than racemeetings run on the turf? I mean they have to be better surely or why would the industry want to build them?

[Freda]

20 hours ago, Huey said:

Perhaps, but do they want to bet on the product?

my point -as above- is that there won't be difference in betting from any racemeeting of similar class.

For me its a no, for reasons I've already outlined.

some will feel the same, others possibly not.  Again, not likely to be much change overall.

If a punter outlay is less or not profitable for the industry then what is the point of it all? You could say field size and opportunity or meetings not getting abandoned but I'm yet to see any evidence to support those claims.

No punter outlay is profitable on NZ racing .

We already have many many unprofitable meetings in this industry do we not? 

All of them, as far as I am aware - wrt punting revenue.

I'm just trying to get my head around why these are better for the industry than racemeetings run on the turf? I mean they have to be better surely or why would the industry want to build them?

 

 

[curious]

Huey, I don't think it was ever thought that the AWTs would increase wagering revenue. As far as I can see, the objective was twofold. Firstly, to provide an excellent year round training facility in each region and secondly to take the pressure off the diminishing number of grass tracks over winter. They seem to be doing that.

As Freda says, they are unlikely to significantly increase or decrease wagering revenue overall. Mostly done with free money to the industry, I don't really see the problem. Like any surface, heavy or firm grass or AWT, they will suit some horses more than others and even that will likely vary given that the moisture content clearly affects the speed of the surface quite significantly. From a punting perspective, I don't really see much difference. I've certainly done a lot better on AWTs over the last year than on grass but the n for that assessment is limited.

[Freda]

What he said.

In addition,  the previous Minister was sold the idea of AWT'S on the basis that abandoned race meetings cost the industry significant income.  Apart from the costs and inconvenience to stakeholders, abandoned racedays likely save money ( no stakes to pay, no tea lady required)  so he was duped there.

 

[Chief Stipe]

On 22/05/2022 at 12:26 PM, curious said:

Huey, I don't think it was ever thought that the AWTs would increase wagering revenue.

Shouldn't that have been a key metric i.e. increase revenue?  Otherwise how do you cover ongoing maintenance and operating costs?

On 22/05/2022 at 12:26 PM, curious said:

Firstly, to provide an excellent year round training facility in each region and secondly to take the pressure off the diminishing number of grass tracks over winter. They seem to be doing that.

Are they providing "an excellent year round training facility"?  My understanding is the AWT's require regular maintenance to ensure a good consistent and safe training surface.  From what I have heard that isn't happening.  If it is it is at the expense (note EXPENSE) of the main turf tracks.

Your second point "to take pressure off the diminishing number of grass tracks over winter" is an objective not driven by necessity but by a political agenda or rather the fact that good winter grass race and training tracks are being closed to acquire funding to pay for the maintenance of the AWT's.

Putting aside the punter perspective and the maintenance issues the AWT's fail on a number of strategic points.  Are they "Clean and Green" i.e. environmentally sustainable?  

[Chief Stipe]

On 21/05/2022 at 10:02 AM, Huey said:

Perhaps, but do they want to bet on the product?

For me its a no, for reasons I've already outlined.

If a punter outlay is less or not profitable for the industry then what is the point of it all? You could say field size and opportunity or meetings not getting abandoned but I'm yet to see any evidence to support those claims.

Exactly @Huey!  If these AWT's don't increase revenue to not only cover their operation and maintenance but also increase stakes then what is the point of them?

If they are succeeding in providing increase revenue why aren't we seeing the data to support that?  Surely the powers that be would be crowing from the stand tops (those that are left)!  No all we hear are crickets.

[Chief Stipe]

I might add there was never a business plan just a political pork barrel plan.

Bit like Winston's other pork barrel plan - the $1 million races.  They all ended in tears too!

[Freda]

On 22/05/2022 at 12:26 PM, curious said:

Huey, I don't think it was ever thought that the AWTs would increase wagering revenue. As far as I can see, the objective was twofold. Firstly, to provide an excellent year round training facility in each region and secondly to take the pressure off the diminishing number of grass tracks over winter. They seem to be doing that.

As Freda says, they are unlikely to significantly increase or decrease wagering revenue overall. Mostly done with free money to the industry, I don't really see the problem. Like any surface, heavy or firm grass or AWT, they will suit some horses more than others and even that will likely vary given that the moisture content clearly affects the speed of the surface quite significantly. From a punting perspective, I don't really see much difference. I've certainly done a lot better on AWTs over the last year than on grass but the n for that assessment is limited.

I just had another recollection..one of the points in the Messara report was that punter confidence [ and therefore revenue as a result ] would improve with consistent, safe tracks instead of a hotch-potch of wet, soggy, inconsistent, rough, hard,  biased - and in some cases, downright unsafe - racing surfaces,  and I'm pretty sure the AWT's were seen to provide that.

Early days yet, but - as Huey says - it would be good to see some comparative figures.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Freda said:

improve with consistent, safe tracks instead of a hotch-potch of wet, soggy, inconsistent, rough, hard,  biased - and in some cases, downright unsafe - racing surfaces,  and I'm pretty sure the AWT's were seen to provide that.

So what's changed?  Every major track is still as you describe.  Meanwhile safe, consistent winter tracks are being mothballed or made redundant.

[nomates]

Well done on the win Pam , meant to PM you but just kept forgetting , age/memory, numerous other weak excuses  ? Hope there is a few more wins on the horizon .

But you owe me , if i had backed him there was no way he was getting home .